Saturday, January 13, 2007

Less than a month before his court-martial begins, Army 1st Lt. Ehren Watada turned to the public Friday, urging it to get involved in the discussion about the Iraq war.Seven months ago, Watada made headlines when he refused to deploy to Iraq with a Fort Lewis-based Stryker Brigade, saying the war was illegal. His decision drew the attention of the anti-war movement, and eventually charges for conduct unbecoming an officer and missing a troop movement.On Friday, Watada continued to talk, wondering about the lack of public outrage over the nearly four-year-old war."Could it be that ... many people don't care about the illegality of this war?" Watada asked students and others who packed a hall at Seattle Central Community College. "It is my belief that the American people have relinquished their responsibility."He also blamed elected officials. [. . .]"We have all been deceived," Watada told the audience. The "American people have the power to end this war."

The above is from Paul Nyhan's "Public inaction dismays Watada" (Seattle Post-Intelligencer) and if you're looking for someone to blame, blame the media. I'm not speaking of Nyhan or any of the others, big and small media, who have covered Ehren Watada. I am speaking of a cowardly, disinterested independent media which doesn't show any interest in war resisters but also demonstrates very little interest in the war. It's so much more fun, apparently, to gas bag about Steny or Obama or whatever else useless subject that can squeeze out several columns of nonsense from. Independent media is supposed to lead and it hasn't.

People are aware of the war, they are taking action. They exist across the country. If they are disconnected or if you are from them, media may go a long way to explaining that. Where it could be leading, independent media abdicates. (There are exceptions and we've noted them before. Exceptions tend to get noted in the snapshots as well because they are doing their job.)

Where is the outrage?

Well, a recent panel supposedly on Iraq was full of people who didn't want to discuss Iraq. They wanted to talk about Iran and a little bit about Syria. They were bored with Iraq, they had nothing to say about it. They had the war lust in their own way as they rushed, spellbound, to discuss the potential of war on Iran. That's very likely a possibility. But it's also true that the topic was Iraq, that the guests were all invited to speak of Iraq, that Iraq has gone to hell and that they didn't have time for that.

This week, we learned that Steven D. Green, considered the ringleader in the rape of Abeer Qassim al-Janabi and the murders of her and her family, had been diagnosed with mental issues ("homicidal ideations") three months prior to the crime he allegedly committed. (James Barker has confessed to his role in the rape and murders and named others in a court of law.) That wasn't worth discussing. The refugee crisis wasn't worth discussing. The death squads weren't worth discussing.

And when Antonia Juhasz brought up the very real problems that will come about if legislation is passed in the Iraqi parliament the attitude was "Oh, that will be overturned a few years on down the line, I'm not worried about that. Let me talk about Iran!"

Oh, how nice for you -- if not for Iraqis. In a few years (5? 10? 15? . . .), when another government is in place, you believe that the Iraqi people may get some sort of break. In the meantime we're talking about a nation that's lived under sanctions throughout the 90s and is now a war zone. We're talking about a country where the UN estimates 100 die each day. We're talking about a country where malnutrition is a serious issue for children. But all you give a damn about is jaw boning about the prospect of another war?

If Iraq isn't getting across to the people, you heard why on Kris Welch's Living Room Thursday. That's not a slap at Welch who did a find job moderating the panel. That is to note that there were four guests and all are supposed experts on the topic of Iraq but it wasn't enough to note that there was a concern about a future war with Iran, the two male guests had to make that their topics.

I'm sorry, that doesn't cut it. Now maybe that war talk makes the males feel macho, I have no idea. I do know the show was about Iraq, the people picked for the panel were selected because they could speak about Iraq and the two male guests elected not to. That's nonsense.

Apparently, they wanted to be Jimmy the Greek and get their predicitions in. In the meantime, Iraq's falling apart and that wasn't worth addressing to them.

There are death squads, there are bombs, there are drive-bys, there are discovered corpses daily but the males elected to rush after the possibility of war on Iran. War on Iran wasn't the scheduled topic. Noting their concerns of that did not require them making it their main point -- not on a show that was supposed to be about Iraq. So portion out the blame to include people who, when presented with the opportunity to discuss Iraq, elect not to.

Ehren Watada is "scheduled to speak tomorrow at the Coupeville Recreation Hall, 901 NW Alexander ST., Whidbey Island in Coupeville, Washington at 1:00 pm. Also tomorrow, there will be a benefit performance for him Corvallis, OR when Crooked Kate and the Childers-Carson Duo take the stage of the Sunnyside-Up (116 N.W. Third St.) at six pm. In addition, later this month A Citizens' Hearings is being convened January 20-22 at Evergreen State College to address the illegality of the war. In addition, Iraq Veterans Against the War are staging Camp Resistance in support of Watada." (That's from yesterday's snapshot.) His court-martial is set for February 5th. If you're wondering where the impassioned editorials from independent media defending him are, join the club. It's disgusting. And that's the state of our independent media today (with few exceptions). So let's all stop pretending that it's the public and start demanding more from our media, big and small.

The White House decision to authorize the aggressive steps against Iranians in Iraq appears to formalize the American effort to contain Iran's ambitions as a new front in the Iraq war.

Seers Gordo and Sanger have looked into Iran's groin (come on, Gordo doesn't recognize hearts) and seem something troubling, apparently. The whole article is strung around a few for the record remarks by Rice and a many more remarks made by her (off the record) and by others. It's stenography at its finest so it makes sense that the paper would team the war pornographer with one of the secretarial pool known as the Elite Fluff Patrol.

Tomorrow, look for one of the stenographers to write up, at length, Bully Boy's announcement that critics of his escalation should offer suggestions -- "those who refuse to give this plan a chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better chance for success. To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible." Excuse me, but many on the left (and, in fact on the right as well) have been calling for withdrawal for some time. It's also true that the James Baker Circle Jerk issued a number of suggestions -- which were all blown off by "The Destroyer" (who wants to be called "The Decider"). He's playing dumb and let's see which mindless scribe at the paper joins him tomorrow in playing dumb and acting as though there aren't many alternatives that have been proposed for some time.

Meanwhile Bully Boy wants to escalate. He wants to send more US troops over and his latest 'answer' is for them to train Iraqis (which has resulted in the death of US troops, but we're all supposed to play dumb there as well). Lloyd notes this from Nancy Trejos' "Battling With Sadr for Iraqi Soldiers' Hearts" (Washington Post):

At best, said several U.S. soldiers interviewed at the base this month, some of the Iraqi troops they advise are sympathetic to Sadr and his army. At worst, they said, some are members of the militia, also known as Jaish al-Mahdi. Despite the uneasiness of the alliance, 100 U.S. troops and 500 Iraqi soldiers have conducted joint raids and shared a base on the eastern side of the Tigris River, once a mixed area that is becoming predominantly Shiite.

In the meantime, he's started an illegal war that he refuses to end and now he wants to whine that there are no other solutions. And Condi's all over the wires with her 'we won't pull the plug on Iraq.' I guess that means they plan to send in Jeb and sherrif deputies?

Ruth will be posting her latest report this weekend but asks that I note "this weekend includes Monday." The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. (Keesha and Carl both e-mailed this morning to note Black Agenda Report's website is having problems -- Doug notes the same about FAIR's -- use the KPFA archives if you missed CounterSpin and want to hear it -- so we'll try to pick up Margaret Kimberley tomorrow.)

Friday, January 12, 2007

Friday, January 12, 2007. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq; after the Bully Boy's Wednesday speech offering no 'benchmarks,' US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates reveleals the 'plan' also offers no timetable; Anthony Arnove and Howard Zinn talk the importance of withdrawal and combat the latest wave of Operation Happy Talk; US war resister Ehren Watada prepares for a public speech this weekend; and Antoni Juhasz addresses what an escalation means for US troops.

Today on KPFA's The Morning Show, Andrea Lewis spoke with Anthony Arnove and Howard Zinn about Iraq and comparisons to Bully Boy's dreamed of escalation in Iraq to Vietnam. Zinn felt it was very important to note that the Iraqi people do not want US forces in their country. On the 'new' 'plan' and it's talk up as well as the way Iraq is addressed, Howard Zinn pointed out:

When they talk about making a difference, they keep using the words 'victory' and 'success' and how do we 'win'? It seems to me this is missing a very, very critical point, Iraq is not our country to 'win' -- to be successful in, to be victorious in. We simply don't belong there. And Bush's 'surge' is exactly the opposite of what we need to do. Well Anthony's book Iraq: The Logic of Withdrawal lays out the argument for the simple statement that I'm making now, that instead of surging in Iraq, we should be withdrawing as fast as we can from Iraq. And not only that, we should be questioning the larger principle involved and that is should the United States be sending troops anywhere in the world -- whether it's Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere else -- should we think we could solve any problems with military solutions? And, in fact, is this the motive of the administration to solve problems for the people of these other countries? Iraqis don't want us in Iraq, that's clear. The American people don't want us in Iraq. Even the Iraqi government, which was really put in in a kind of fake election with American control excercise, even the Iraqi government is very embarrassed by the idea of having more American troops in Iraq. So what Bush is proposing is a violation not only of self-determination of Iraqis and the will of the American people and world opinion, it's a continution of the whole idea of US military dominace in the world which we should do everything we can to bring to an end.

Andrea Lewis asked about the statements that if the US pulls out it will lead to chaos in Iraq.

Anthony Arnove: I think we have to acknowledge that people who raise that point raise it two different ways. The cynical group of people who make that argument, pundits, politicans, to say we can never pull out, to justify the US remaining as an occupying power in Iraq for years to come, to justify setting up military bases, permanent bases, in Iraq, to justify the role that the United States wants to play in Iraq projecting its power in the entire Middle East and globally, as Howard mentioned. But then there's also decent people who have a concern for the consequences of the Iraqi people. And I think we have to acknowledge their fears and their concerns for what would happen to Iraq? And we're not saying abandon the Iraqi people --"This is some kind of isolationist position, we don't care what happens to them." We're saying the opposite. Our point is that every day that the United States continues in Iraq as an unwanted, foreign, occupying power, it makes the situation worse for ordinary Iraqis. It's not ending sectarian conflict in Iraq, it's actually fueling sectarian conflict. It's not ending violence, it's actually fueling violence. The United States occupation is the greatest source of instability in the country. And after every benchmark that we've been told would change the situation there --elections, the constitution, the capture of Saddam Hussein, the execution of Saddam Hussein -- things just get worse. Iraq right now is the world's largest refugee crises in the world. Inflation has skyrocketed, unemployment has skyrocketed, there's less electricty, less safe drinking water, less security for Iraqis which is why poll after poll shows that that they say their life is getting worse and they want the United States to leave and so if we claim that we're bringing democracy well democracy would dictate that we let the Iraqi people determine their own future. But we should support them. We should pay reperations. We owe them a tremends debt, not just for the harm caused by the occupation, but all of the years before that the United States imposed sanctions on the country and, before that, supported Saddam Hussein as he carried out his worst crimes.

Zinn discussed how the same arguments for the US remaining in Iraq were the ones his book Vietnam: The Logic for Withdrawal were "greeted with the same claims that are made today" -- e.g. chaos, violence, civil war in Vietnam. "The truth is that we were creating the chaos," observed Zinn. Anthony Arnove's book, Iraq: The Logic for Withdrawal, has just been released in paperback and he will be appearing on the following dates:

Appearing as part of a panel discussion yesterday on Kris Welch's program, KPFA's Living Room , Antonia Juhasz (author of The BU$H Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time) noted two points regarding the US troops in Iraq. First, she noted, "On this issue of the troops increase . . . Bush wanted significantly more troops but the military said we don't have anywhere to get them for you, there aren't anymore troops. So the troops that are the addition of the 20,000 is simply going to be extending the tours of troops that are there speeding up the redeployment of troops that have already served. We have to be really clear about who the soldiers are that are part of this increase."

She then spoke of what their role would be and what is wanted from Iraq.

Antonia Juhasz: This is . . . the critical moment to make our demands very, very clear to the Democrats and one of those demands has to explicity be that this is a war for oil that cannot be allowed to continue and that what the administration is hoping for is that it will suceed in its economic transformation of Iraq which at this point has nearly reached fruition -- which is a new law developed way before the war in the US State Department, then pushed by US corporations, pushed by the successive appointed governments of Iraq by the US government following the invasion -- for a new law that is now, the al-Maliki govenrmenet has now said that it will put this new law forward to the Iraqi parliament that creates an unprecedented oil victory in Iraq. So what it does is give the government of Iraq nominal control and ownership of their oil but every function of the oil industry would then be privatized and turned over to foreign companies and the foreign companies would get a form of contract called a Production Sharing Agreement which is not used anywhere in the Middle East not used anywhere in oil rich countries in fact that gives first 30 years, 30 year contract, and then according to the UK Independent, that the intial contract would give 75% of initial profits to the private companies leaving only 25% for the Iraqis. [. . .] Iraq can best be understood as a pimple of oil that has yet to be plucked. It has certainly the second largest oil reserves in the world possibly larger. It has 80 known oil fields but only 17 have even begun to be developed. It is those undeveloped oil fields which are all completely within the realm of the new law and then the debate, that the president mentioned in his speech, is over a constitutional amendment to address the existing fields, which are now divided between the Shia and the Kurds in the north and the south, and to bring the control of the existing fields back into the central gover of al-Maliki. And what I believe is that the Bush administration is going to hold onto the occupation and make it larger and make it as big as he can until the law passes and US companies sign contracts and then they have to get work. And they need a security force to do that and that is our troops.

While Juhasz addressed the realities of US troops in Iraq, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, testifying before the US Senate Armed Service Committee, revealed a reality of his own. BBC reports that Gates, speaking of Bully Boy's new 'plan' for Iraq, stated that there was no timetable for the puppet government to achieve any of the non-defined benchmarks. Susan Cornwell and Kristin Roberts (Reuters) observe that Gates threw out the usual sop of troop withdrawal on the conditional 'if' (always the same 'if' -- if a corner is turned and it never is) and they write that "Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. John Murtha, who heads a House panel overseeing defense spending, said he would try to attach restrictions to a $100 billion 'emergency' request for new war money that Bush will request in February. Those restrictions could include a prohibition on spending money for the additional troops, Murtha said. They could also include immediately closing Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad and the Guantanamo Bay detention center at a U.S. base in Cuba."

Yesterday, US military forces stormed an Iranian diplomatic consulate and arrested six diplomatic staff. The Kurdish government in northern Iraq responded by insisting that diplomatic staff be released immediately (Iran has long had a consulate in Iraq's Kurdish territory). KUNA reports that the US, via White House flack Tony Snow, continues to dismiss concerns and attempt to downgrade a recognized diplomatic headquarters while the Foreign Minister of Iraq, Hoshyar Zebari, continues to state that it was a consulate and that, in addition,"U.S. forces tried to seize more people at the airport in Irbil, 220 miles north of Baghdad, prompting a confrontation with Kurdish troops guarding the facility that was resolved without casualties. " The BBC notes that the consulate has been "operating for years" and the Mikhail Kamyin ("Russing foreign ministry spokesman") declared, "It is absolutely unacceptable for troops to storm the consular offices of a foreign state on the territory of another state . . . It is also not clear how this fits in with American statements that Washington respects the sovereignty of Iraq."

In other Iraq news . . .

Bombings?

Mohammed al Awsy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that, near Baquba, a mortar attack killed "one primary school teacher and one student," while a child was killed in Muqdadiyah by an IED and, in Baquba, an Iraqi soldier was killed by a bomb and three more wounded.

Shootings?

Mohammed al Awsy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that in the Diyala Province, "American forces killed a woman and a child and injured another woman with another child (all from the same family)" while 4 Shi'ites were shot dead "near ARAB SHOKA area near hibhib area in khalis town" as well as their driver.

Corpses?

Reuters notes that 10 corpses were discovered in Baghdad, seven in Mosul, three in Basmaia.

www.kboo.fm The oldest public radio station in the states hosted IVAW Deployed and had Darrell[Anderson] and Dennis[Kyne] on Friday morning for one hour and a half. Discussing Darrell's experience in this illegal war and his 18 months in exile to Canada, as well as the fact that thousands of other soldiers are refusing to deploy to this illegal war. Hosted by Ani and Melody on their weekly progam (7:30-9 am) Absolutly revolting.This interview was in depth...it covered the draft, the anti war movement, depleted uranium and allowed multiple callers to learn about the Gulf War, which the VA handbook of benefits states began on 2 Aug 1990 and will end on a date to be determined by congress. When will they end it? We discussed the court martials of Suzanne Swift and Ehren Watada...and the support from Portland, Oregon is massive. Darrell stated, "this is the most radical community I have been too."

Please support this move....as troops are gathering to support Ehren Watada in his stand against the lies that have gained our nation nothing more than death and despise. Purple Heart, 'Winner' Darrell Anderson returned from 18 months in hiding when he heard that Lt. Watada had refused to deploy. Darrell Anderson would have deployed to his third tour had he not gone north. Anderson asked me to get on the ( http://www.ivawdeployed.org ) with him and get to Fort Lewis to open up Camp RESISTANCE!!!We are here, in the mud. It is not warm here...nor dry.....however, you should stand with us....in support of a man who stands up against the military mahine and a nation of millions who don't have the foggiest notion that our troops do not want to serve in this war. Lt. Watada is speaking for thousands of enlisted soldiers like Darrell Anderson and myself, a fifteen year veteran of the Army. Watada is a true leader.....leading and doing....he knows he should never ask enlisted soldiers to do things he would never do....that is part of the requirement. NEVER ask nor order your troops to do things that you wouldn't do. There are more violators of this rule in the military now, than ever (or at least in my 15 years.) Lt. Watada is not one of them...and with that, the soldiers, who have always followed good leaders....will follow Lt. Watada.. Mike, Damon, Ethan and I, slept on the rig last night...it was night one of Camp RESISTANCE!!!There is a RESISTANCE!!! going on. Thousands of troops are refusing to deploy....please let everyone know we are here.....working from the wi fi hot spot, let them know they should stand here too. If not for a month as we will, than for a day or even an hour. We are at off ramp 119, gates of Fort Lewis.We are meeting up at the gates of Fort lewis to support the Lt. Why? We have had enough...we want the war to stop....we want the government to stop using the troops as pawns in their game. If you know of a veteran who is opposed to this war, please help them get here....if you are ok with the weather, please get here also.I, personally, will always think it an honor and a privilege to have served the United States people...I know Ehren does too. It is with that same pride and honor that I, personally, ask you to do something for this man....who has, without question stood, with more integrity in his little pinky, than most of these Generals have in their entire skin. I am honored to know his family, they are a wonderful display of family values...something we don't see a lot of.To support him.... ( http://www.thankyoult.org ) you will find the news to follow the days up to the trial......

Meanwhile, John Powell writes to the Capital Times to weigh in on the argument that Watada signed a contract and any responsibilities he had for war ended right there: "Perhaps Piek has never served in the military, but I remember the oath I took when I was inducted into the Army as a lowly buck private in 1968. The oath for soldiers is virtually the same as the oath taken by the president of the United States and every other official of every level of government in the country: an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States.There is nothing in that oath about obeying orders. In fact, the Geneva Convention and the Uniform Code of Military Justice make it clear that a soldier's duty is to disobey illegal orders.Watada alleges that the Iraq war is unconstitutional and therefore illegal, and that he is duty-bound to refuse to serve in it. This should be the issue - not whether he refused to obey orders (clearly he did), but whether those orders were legal."

Finally, on yesterday's KPFA's Flashpoints, Dennis Bernstein provided military families with the opportunity to weigh in on Bully Boy's announced intent to escalate. This included a couple with five children and grandchildren serving in the military who ask that people write Congress and say "no" to the escalation. In addition to utilizing either previous link for an archived broadcast, Rebecca wrote about the broadcast yesterday.

Nobody knows how much strain the ground forces can bear. Commanders worry about any sign of damage to morale, such as anecdotal evidence of rising divorce rates among servicemen. A poll in the Military Times last month found falling support for the war. Just 41% approved of the decision to go into Iraq, compared with 56% the previous year. Last June Ehren Watada, an army first lieutenant, became the first commissioned officer to refuse to serve in Iraq. He said the war was “not only morally wrong but a horrible breach of American law”. He will be court-martialled next month.Nevertheless, Mr Bush has decided to stretch the army a bit more. The surge will be achieved by extending the service of troops in Iraq, speeding up the deployment of forces scheduled to arrive later this year, and calling up a fresh batch of reservists for duty in 2008.

The above, noted by Gareth, is from "The president's last throw" (The Economist) and he wanted to note that even The Economist (not a left-wing periodical) could do what The Nation couldn't throughout 2006, mention Ehren Watada. Now, in fairness to The Nation, they did mention him in a 2007 issue, remember? They quoted a person calling him a coward. That wasEhren Watada's first appearence in The Nation (print edition). Now if you think there's something wrong with that, with the fact that Ehren Watada appears to be treated more fairly by the right-leaning Economist than by the left Nation, you are . . . 100% right.

Corvallis -- The trio Crooked Kate and the Childers-Carson Duo will perform a set of music ranging from folk to classical at 6 p.m. Saturday, Jan. 13, in the first of a series of monthly musical events to benefit causes that contribute to peace. The first session of "Second Saturdays" opens at Sunnyside-Up, 116 N.W. Third St.Organizers suggest a donation of $5 for the event, but say no one will be turned away because of a lack of funds.Made up of Susan Peck, Rita Brown and Anne Ridlington, Crooked Kate will produce a genre-crossing mix of voices, keyboard, cello, guitar, banjo, penny-whistle, accordion and percussion from 7 to 8 p.m. Laurie Childers and Mina Carson, who accompany their songs with keyboard, violin, mandolin, guitar and drums, will open for Crooked Kate from 6 to 7 p.m.Corvallis Alternatives to War and the Mid-Valley Veterans for Peace chapter are sponsors of the monthly musical sessions. The Troubadour Music Center is co-sponsor.All donations from the Jan. 13 event will go to the defense fund for Lt. Ehren Watada, the first commissioned officer to refuse service in Iraq. As a result of his decision, the Army has chosen to court-martial him in a trial set to begin Feb. 5 at Fort Lewis in Washington. For information about the case, go to www.thankyoult.org.

As the Feb. 5 date for court martial proceedings against military resister 1st Lt. Ehren Watada approaches, antiwar, faith-based and veterans organizations are building support for his right to refuse deployment to Iraq and to speak out against a war he declares is illegal. As Watada, the first commissioned officer to reject going to Iraq, underwent pre-trial hearings at Fort Lewis, Wash., Jan. 4, over 200 supporters gathered at the federal building here for a rally and "die-in" to demand the return home of U.S. soldiers. Some 28 protesters were later arrested as they lay, wrapped in sheets, in front of the doors. "They've told so many lies, let them tell another -- declare victory and bring our troops home now," Marilyn Saner of Military Families Speak Out told the crowd. Saner's son, an active duty Army soldier, was wounded by an IED last July and now faces redeployment to Iraq. Calling his organization a "cross-section" of the community, the Rev. Lloyd Wake of the Watada Support Committee urged Congress to end funding for the war, bring the troops home and treat them decently on their return. [. . .]Besides the Watada Support Committee, the protest was organized by APIs Resist, Declaration of Peace, faith-based organizations including Unitarian Universalists, Quakers, Episcopalians and Buddhists, and peace and veterans groups. Watada's supporters also gathered at the gates of Fort Lewis.

Iraq's Shiite-led government offered only a grudging endorsement on Thursday of President Bush’s proposal to deploy more than 20,000 additional troops in an effort to curb sectarian violence and regain control of Baghdad. The tepid response immediately raised questions about whether the government would make a good-faith effort to prosecute the new war plan. The Iraqi leader, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, failed to appear at a news conference and avoided any public comment. He left the government's response to an official spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, who gave what amounted to a backhanded approval of the troop increase and emphasized that Iraqis, not Americans, would set the future course in the war.[. . .]While senior officials in Washington have presented the new war plan as an American adaptation of proposals that were first put to Mr. Bush by Mr. Maliki when the two men met in the Jordanian capital of Amman in November, the picture that is emerging in Baghdad is quite different. What Mr. Maliki wanted, his officials say, was in at least one crucial respect the opposite of what Mr. Bush decided: a lowering of the American profile in the war, not the increase Mr. Bush has ordered.These Iraqi officials say Mr. Maliki, in the wake of Mr. Bush's setback in the Democratic sweep in November's midterm elections, demanded that American troops be pulled back to the periphery of Baghdad and that the war in the capital, at least, be handed to Iraqi troops. The demand was part of a broader impatience among the ruling Shiites to be relieved from American oversight so as to be able to fight and govern according to the dictates of Shiite politics, not according to strictures from Washington.

From the men drinking lemon tea in cafes to the politicians fighting to strengthen their fledgling government, Baghdad residents greeted President Bush's announcement of a shift in Iraq strategy with a skepticism born of nearly four years of war.To many, the crux of Iraq's intractable problem is whether the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki -- installed as Shiite Muslims were emerging from oppression under Saddam Hussein to become the country's ruling majority -- can rise above deep sectarian rivalry and protect Iraqi neighborhoods equitably, even in the face of catastrophic insurgent attacks by Sunni Arabs."The main reason for what's taking place in Iraq is the settlement of historical paybacks," said Faiz Botros, 50, an Iraqi Christian sitting at a sidewalk table Thursday as car horns blared along a street in central Baghdad. "Neither 20,000 soldiers, nor 100,000, nor hundreds of thousands, will change anything. In Iraq, the politicians are still living in a mentality from 1,400 years ago. And this is the disaster of Iraq."

Now available, the updated paperback edition ofIraq: The Logic of WithdrawalAnthony Arnove, with a foreword by Howard ZinnMetropolitan Books / American Empire Project Series

"An urgent book."--Arundhati Roy"A powerful and compelling argument on behalf of withdrawal from Iraq."--Ron Kovic "Anthony Arnove's analysis of the reasons for U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Iraq is brilliant."--Cindy Sheehan"A book that every American, regardless of political viewpoint, should read."--Richard Falk"A compelling brief against America's new imperial venture."--Frances Fox Piven"Conventional wisdom keeps saying there are no good options, but Arnove's analysis suggests a way out of the misery."--Chicago Reader"A rigorous analysis of the American occupation."--Mahmood Mamdani"An impassioned, unflinching case for immediate U.S. withdrawal. Read this book and bring the troops home now."--Eve Ensler

February 1, 7:30 pm, Pasadena, CAVoices of a People's History of the United States with Mark Ruffalo, Q'Orianka Kilcher, Benjamin Bratt, Marisa Tomei, Josh Brolin, and Alfre Woodard.All Saints Episcopal Churchhttp://www.icujp.org

"I have been very clear about my support for Ehren Watada," she told IPS.

That's independent journalist Sarah Olson speaking to Glantz. Olson interviewed Ehren Watada, the military wants her to testify at his court-martial. Since Ruth's Report went up Saturday a number of visitors want to 'correct' it. There's nothing in there to correct. (And The Third Estate Sunday Review wrote similar comments, "Editorial: Ehren Watada stands and independent media heads for the bathrooms" -- they includes me for visitors who've not been to that site). But since it went up, there has been a number of visitors e-mailing their belief that Ruth's remarks require a correction.

My response? Take it up with Olson. If she needs to tell Glantz that she supports Watada, it's her own fault. And no, she has not "been very clear about my support for Ehren Watada." That is flat out wrong. I'm not quite sure where visitors get their information but Ruth, like most in the community, have followed the press on this and Olson has not been clear. I'm not going to waste time reading any e-mails about how Olson must have been misquoted. Nor am I going to spoonfeed people who haven't followed the issue with a variety of examples.

As a journalist, I cannot support or criticize the thoughts of an interview subject. My job is to record those thoughts accurately and provide a public forum for debate.

That's attributed to Olson in an article that she's supposed to be the author of (link goes to Dissident Voice but it's appeared everywhere including at Editor & Publisher). Read it again if it's not clear to you but it is that remark and others like it that demonstrate that she has not been clear. Now maybe that's the legal advice she's getting but she's been all over the map.

If you have a problem, your friends may be happy to listen to you. But they're not going to rush to help you until you make a choice. (And they're going to tell you they can't make the choice for you but will support you regardless.) If Olson believes it is wrong that she's being asked to testify (and, from her statements, she does), then she needs to say (for journalism), "No." Saying it will bring her support but there are things happening all over the world right now -- as opposed to might happens -- so everyone's plate is full when it comes to "I can't talk about what I will do."

If you think it's wrong, you don't testify and you say publicly you won't testify.

She thinks it's wrong so she needs to say she won't testify and, even now, if she does that, we'll be happy to note it and applaud it. But in terms of Ehren Watada, she has not been clear, she has sent mixed signals and, in the example above, it came directly from her. (As a journalist she can't support or criticize -- one moment, then she's telling Glantz that she's always been clear. No, she hasn't.)

A journalist communicates and she has no one to blame, if she feels she's been misunderstood, but herself. Ruth owes no correction and there will be no correction. If what Olson told Glantz is what she feels, the problem is with Olson who has not been clear. Earlier, she bailed out (at the last minute) on an announced interview for The Morning Show because her lawyer didn't think it was wise. (Later, she'd pop up on Democracy Now! with her I-can't-talk-about-my-legal-strategy statements.) There have been a number of articles (a huge number when you consider that other journalists are so rarely noted) and she's come off all over the map. She hasn't not been clear that she supports Ehren Watada. I personally think that is part of the legal advice she's receiving. Whatever the reason, she's been all over the map and anyone following the coverage closely could notice that.

Now to deal with the other visitor complaint -- what's wrong with the US military referring to (Iraqi) women as "housewives"? There's a reason that term went out of usage for most Americans -- and did so decades ago. It's dismissive and it has implications not limited to 'ownership' of a woman by a man and by a house she's been 'provided' with. "Homemaker" is an active term that reflects the tasks done within home.

Does it matter? Yeah, it does. It goes to the way women are seen by the US military. If you missed it, Suzanne Swift was expected to fulfill 'duties' that men didn't have to and the reasons for that include the fact that she wasn't seen as a functioning person by some in the US military but instead as an object there for amusement. With the well documented cases of abuse towards women in this country within the military, it's possibly not surprising that the term "housewife" would be used -- not even surprising that someone who should have come of age knowing the term was "homemaker."

It shows the objectifying and the way that women are seen in the US military. It demonstrates that due to the fact that the term was issued, it was written and issued, with no red flags going up. It goes to a lack of awareness (to put it mildly) that can lead to abuse, that can lead US soldiers to think that a fourteen-year-old girl exists for their sexual violence. In the January 2007 issue of The Progressive, Traci Hukill has an article entitled "A Peculiar Version of Friendly Fire" (pages 17-20). Kelly Dougherty discusses an incident she discussed with Matthew Rothschild last year on Progressive Radio. She's in Iraq and she's there as a member of the US military. For some strange reason, it's thought to be okay to post porn, to distribute it around her. As Hukill writes:

She'd just walked into the common tent shared by her ten-member military police squad to find two lower-ranking guys watching porn, which is against the rules but ubiquitous in Iraq. She told them she didn't want to see any of it. One of them apologized, but her squad leader overheard the exchange and stepped in."He wanted to argue with me, so I was forced to defend why I didn't want them looking at women engaged in acts of sex when I'm in the tents," Dougherty says.

Now let's repeat for the slow, she was in Iraq to serve. She was ordered to go there. She shouldn't have put up with that ___. They shouldn't be, women, "instructed to go on their daily run in pairs because someone had been raped on the base" (Tallil Airbase near Nasiriyah). Or how about this story Hukill recounts, a training that's supposed to be addressing these very topics? "A friend in all-male unit related a story in which an obligatory equal opportunity class devolved into a rant against servicewomen, who 'always' said they'd been raped after regrettable drunken liasons." Oh, they said it, did they? They just made it up when they were sober? Jennifer Machmer was raped while serving and the punishment for her rapist? "The commander wrote her assailant up and docked his pay." If you're not getting the problem at this point, then you are probably part of the problem. Hukill notes that there were 2,734 reports of "rapes or attempted rapes from all of its [US] bases worldwide" and from that "just seventy-nine servicemembers were court-martialed for sexual assault."

When "housewife" became a term under criticism (the sixties, there is no excuse for any member of the US military to be using the term today) it had to do with the way women were seen by society. That the term can still be used goes a long way towards explaining how a culture still exists within the US military where rape is never rape, just some woman changing her mind.

Now maybe this is new to you. If so, you can refer to, most recently, Jane Hoppen's "Women in the military: Who's Got Your Back?" (Off Our Backs, volume xxxvi, number 2, pages 14-16) which may bring you quickly up to speed:

Events such as the 1991 Tailhook Association convention, in which more than 100 officers sexually assaulted and harrassed dozens of fellow female soldiers but were never convicted; the 1997 sexual assault scandal at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland; and the 2003 sexual assault scandal at the Air Force Academy have brought the issue of military sexual assault and abuse to the forefront. However, in the past the issue has faded from attention quickly, with the military pledging to police its own, plan for prevention, and clean up the mess. Little seems to have changed though. An official Department of Defense report states that, "Thirty percent of female veterans in a recent survey reported rape or attempted rape during active duty. Thirty-seven percent of women who reported a rape or attempted rape had been raped more than once; fourteen percent of the victims reported being gang raped" (Department of Defense, 2002). This is a disturbing reality during a time when 15 percent of our nation's armed forces are female, with more than 204,500 American wommen serving in the military.

The culture is one that demeans women, that reduces them to objects and the military is still not addressing that culture. That "housewife" (a term that fell out of favor some time ago) could be written for publication and then published by the military demonstrates the culture (and the piggishness still in play). That no one thought, "Well, if they aren't teachers, how about 'mothers'?" but was instead all on board with the pejorative indicates the cultural mindset which still has not caught up with where the country was thirty years ago.

The pretrial hearing for Lt. Ehren Watada, who refused deployment to Iraq to fight in what he calls an illegal war of aggression, began on Jan. 4 in Fort Lewis, Wash.Watada, 28, is charged with missing movement and four specifications, or counts, of conduct unbecoming an officer.The first day of the pre-trial set the parameters of what can be expected from the court-martial. The day also saw protests against the war and in support of Watada, including a "die-in" in San Francisco, at which several Nikkei activists were arrested.Legality of War DebateDuring the four-hour pretrial hearing, the prosecution and defense reportedly argued over what would be allowed during the actual court martial, which is set to begin on Feb. 5. Watada's civilian attorney Eric Seitz requested that the judge allow him to argue the legality of the war in court, by presenting what he called "overwhelming evidence that the war is illegal, beyond any doubt."According to a report in The Olympian, Capt. Daniel Kuecker, the lead prosecutor, argued that under the "political question doctrine" the courts defer to executive or legislative branch jurisdiction on the question of the war's legality. The executive and legislative branch approved the war in 2003, Kuecker argued, therefore rendering Watada’s motive for missing movement irrelevant to the case.Judge Lt. Colonel John Head initially agreed that the court martial is only designed to determine what Lt. Watada was ordered and declined to do, regardless of intent. However, the judge later decided that by charging Watada with contemptuous speech as well as with missing movement, the prosecution has effectively made motive relevant."Aren't you trying to block these issues from coming in the front door, but opening up the back door?" the judge reportedly asked the prosecution. "You have charged motive as an offense."Head said he would issue a written ruling on the request later.Attorney Seitz said that if he were not able to present the evidence in court, he would present it during the appeals process before the military appeals court and the Supreme Court."The legality of the Iraq War is not merely a political question. Lt. Watada’s specific intent was to avoid unlawful actions in Iraq," Seitz said in statement which appeared on the Not In Our Name Website. "For the sake of due process, we need the opportunity to raise this issue."

Last Thursday was the start of Ehren Watada's pretrial. And the silence on that from some in indpendent media (see Elaine's "How The Nation isn't cutting it") was appalling -- you sort of got the feeling they watched Somersby rooting for Richard Gere to die. Ehren Watada's stand does matter and his stand and those of others resisting the war is a brave one. It takes tremendous courage to stand up for something you believe in and those who have are surely not surprised by the attacks from the right. Those who've noted the silences from the left? We're flat out appalled. The war resisters are doing their part to end the war. Those who are doing nothing? They're letting it drag on.

They're just there to try and make the people free,But the way that they're doing it, it don't seem like that to me.Just more blood-letting and misery and tearsThat this poor country's known for the last twenty years,And the war drags on.-- words and lyrics by Mick Softly (available on Donovan's Fairytale)

Last Thursday, the number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 3006. Tonight? 3018. (AP headlines 3019 by their count.) And Iraqis? Late in the day (very late in the day), a few reports drifted out and, no, it wasn't peaches & creams for Iraqis. From the AP:

On Thursday, police reported at least 45 people were killed or found dead from bombings and shootings, including a 10-year-old struck in a mortar attack in the northern city of Mosul and 37 tortured bodies found in Baghdad.Gunmen ambushed a minivan carrying Oil Ministry employees in a predominantly Shiite area of Baghdad, kidnapping six of the passengers and the driver after separating people according to their IDs, police said.

A US soldier has been sentenced to 18 years in jail for murdering three blindfolded Iraqi detainees during a raid near Tikrit last year.William Hunsaker, 24, was handed a dishonourable discharge from the military after pleading guilty to murder and attempted murder.He is one of three US soldiers being tried for the murders by a court martial in the state of Kentucky.Lawyers for some of the men have said the soldiers were acting under orders to kill Iraqi men who were of military age.Two days ago 21-year-old Juston Graber pleaded guilty to one charge of aggravated assault with a dangerous weapon.He was sentenced to nine months in prison.

Antonia Juhasz was among Kris Welch's guests on KPFA's Living Room today. The topic of the show was Iraq and Zach wrote in saying her discussion on the oil stood out to him so we'll note that section.

Antonio Juhasz: On this issue of the troops increase . . . Bush wanted significantly more troops but the military said we don't have anywhere to get them for you, there aren't anymore troops. So the troops that are the addition of the 20,000 is simply going to be extending the tours of troops that are there speeding up the redeployment of troops that have already served. We have to be really clear about who the soldiers are that are part of this increase[. . .]This is . . . the critical moment to make our demands very, very clear to the Democrats and one of those demands has to explicity be that this is a war for oil that cannot be allowed to continue and that what the administration is hoping for is that it will suceed in its economic transformation of Iraq which at this point has nearly reached fruition -- which is a new lawdeveloped way before the war in the US State Department, then pushed by US corporations, pushed by the successive appointed governments of Iraq by the US government following the invasion -- for a new law that is now, the al-Maliki govenrmenet has now said that it will put this new law forward to the Iraqi parliament that creates an unprecedented oil victory in Iraq.So what it does is give the government of Iraq nominal control and ownership of their oil but every function of the oil industry would then be privatized and turned over to foreign companies and the foreign companies would get a form of contract called a Production Sharing Agreement which is not used anywhere in the Middle East not used anywhere in oil rich countries in factthat gives first 30 years, 30 year contract, and then according to the UK Independent, that the intial contract would give 75% of initial profits to the private companies leaving only 25% for the Iraqis.

Kris Welch: [sardonic] How handy.

Antonia Juahsz: Iraq can best be understood as a pimple of oil that has yet to be plucked.It has certainly the second largest oil reserves in the world possibly larger. It has 80 known oil fields but only 17 have even begun to be developed. It is those undeveloped oil fields which are all completely within the realm of the new law and then the debate, that the president mentioned in his speech, is over a constitutional amendment to address the existing fields, which are now divided between the Shia and the Kurds in the north and the south, and to bring the control of the existing fields back into the central gover of al-Maliki. And what I believe is that the Bush administration is going to hold onto the occupation and make it larger and make it as big as he can until the law passes and US companies sign contracts and then they have to get work. And they need a security force to do that and that is our troops.

Antonia Juhasz is the author of The BU$H Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time (which is rather obvious to this community since it made the list Martha & Shirley compiled that members voted on). Mia and Megan also noted the interview and Megan noted that she "enjoyed Antonia's point that it is about Iraq, that there is a war and occupation going on. I don't think that there's a desire in many media outlets to cover Iraq and I was very glad Antonia stated the very basic truth that Iraq is still a war while others rushed to cover what might happen tomorrow. Does anyone get how little attention Iraq gets? How little serious attention? I was really glad that Antonia made that point."

The Pentagon has abandoned its limit on the time a citizen-soldier can be required to serve on active duty, officials said Thursday, a major change that reflects an Army stretched thin by longer-than-expected combat in Iraq.The day after President Bush announced his plan for a deeper U.S. military commitment in Iraq, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters the change in reserve policy would have been made anyway because active-duty troops already were getting too little time between their combat tours.The Pentagon also announced it is proposing to Congress that the size of the Army be increased by 65,000, to 547,000 and that the Marine Corps, the smallest of the services, grow by 27,000, to 202,000, over the next five years. No cost estimate was provided, but officials said it would be at least several billion dollars.Until now, the Pentagon's policy on the Guard or Reserve was that members' cumulative time on active duty for the Iraq or Afghan wars could not exceed 24 months. That cumulative limit is now lifted; the remaining limit is on the length of any single mobilization, which may not exceed 24 consecutive months, Pace said.In other words, a citizen-soldier could be mobilized for a 24-month stretch in Iraq or Afghanistan, then demobilized and allowed to return to civilian life, only to be mobilized a second time for as much as an additional 24 months.

Bloody George, the lamest duck in U.S. history is going to soon announce to the nation that he will be sending 21,500 more troops into Iraq, which some call a "surge," some call an escalation, and what I like to refer to as: Operation Increasing Cannon Fodder.The Hypocrite in Chief has said over and over again, throughout nearly four years of his malevolent and dysfunctional occupation that he would increase troop levels when the "generals on the ground" asked him to. I guess he never said what he would do if his generals on the ground asked him not to send new troops, but apparently one will get his ass canned as Generals Casey and Abizaid recently found out.We humans for peace and sanity need to descend on our Congressional offices to avert this calamity in the making. This past week, Speaker Pelosi threatened Bloody George with withholding funds for this newest venture into the abyss and WE need to make sure that she follows through with that threat. Bloody George's funds need to be cut off. He can't perpetrate any more murder or perpetuate any more hatred if the cash cow runs dry.

Thursday, January 11, 2006. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq though it gets little attention, Bully Boy eats up more time with his dismal performance (continued dismal performance), Ehren Watada prepares to speak this weekend in what may be his final speech before the February 5th court-martial, Condi Rice challenges Bully Boy for American Most In Denial, and the world says no to Bully Boy's plans for escalation (more US troops being sent to Iraq).

Starting with Bully Boy's Cop Rock-like bust in primetime yesterday. Saying exactly the same thing, in the same way he always had, Bully Boy had nothing to offer Iraq, the United States or the world. Speaking to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today, US Secretary of State Condi Rice said the fact that just because they didn't act properly in the past doesn't mean that they won't act properly in the future. She was speaking of Iraqis but she could apply it to the 'logic' of the the administration.

That was what Bully Boy's speech last night was built upon. Two months from the four-year anniversary of the start of the illegal war, he wants to say, as he did last night, "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me" -- what does that even mean? That's ownership? That's nothing. There are no efforts at responsibility or accountability. As with the 'government' of Nouri al-Maliki, there are no results -- only Bully Boy's had nearly four years.

With those ten words ("Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me"), he wants yet another blank check to continue the same illegal war that is already lost. There were no benchmarks in Bully Boy's speech. But another thing still missing is a definition of 'success.'

There is no 'win' to be had in Iraq but what is the mission? What mission is reason to continue the illegal war? There is none, none explained to the people. The administration wants . . . 'democracy building' -- at the point of a gun? The administration wants . . . a peace keeping mission? Whose being protected, what is the goal and airy terms like 'democracy' or 'liberation' demonstrate that there is still no plan, there is nothing that a military can achieve, and that the illegal war has no defense.

Speaking to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today, Rice rejected the notion of troops being placed on the Iraqi borders -- "I don't think you want to depend on boots on the grounds to defend those borders." So what are they doing? Today, she can't articulate it and the Bully Boy can't. And when you grasp that 3019 US troops have died, the fact that they seem to think ten little words grant them a "fresh start" in an illegal war is not just surprising, it's appalling.

US Senator Russ Feingold stated, of Bully Boy's Primetime Bust, "the president ignored the recommendations of members of both parties, military leaders, foreign policy experts, and the will of the American people by announcing that he intends to escalate our involvement in Iraq by sending more troops there. Congress must bring an end to what has been one of the greatest foreign policy mistakes in the history of our nation. The President continues to deny the devastating impact that keeping our brave troops in Iraq is having on our national security. The American people have rejected the Administration's Iraq-centric foreign policy. It is time to bring our troops out of Iraq and refocus on defeating the global terrorist networks that threaten this country."

US Senator Chuck Hagel stated, "I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam if it's carried out. . . . I will resist it."

Surveying opinion in the Middle East, Maggie Michael (AP) reports that the speech has resulted in "strong skepticism across the Mideast, where many predicted that even with more soldiers, America would fail to break the cycle of violence" and quotes Areeb el-Rentawi, Al-Quds Center for Political Studies (Amman, Jordan), stating that the Bully Boy "didn't answer the main question: What if al-Maliki falied in meeting the new plan? Al-Maliki's government is part of the problem, not the solution."

Speaking with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!, from Najaf, Sami Rasouli compared Bully Boy's escalation to current conditions in Iraq, "Actually, Amy, for the last four days, I couldn't get a shower -- because there is no electricity, there is no heating, so water's so cold in this harsh winter in Iraq -- because Iraq has a continental climate that's very cold in the winter and very hot in the summer. So, as I speak to you, I really stink -- and, as the increasing prices in the economy that's collapsing stink and the Iraq government policy stinks, even the American policy, that so-called surge in Iraq, stinks too because, as you know, and Iraqis know and the others, that the occupation is a form of war. So any escalation in this type of war, the resistance is going to escalate too."

Similar sentiments are voiced by Lara Logan (CBS News): "Iraqis have been talking about nothing else all day, and most of the people we've spoken to say they do not want more U.S. troops here. They don't believe this is going to help."

And the puppet government? Sabrina Tavernise and John F. Burns (New York Times) report that puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki and aides are "wary" and "fear that an increased American troop presence, particularly in Baghdad, will be accompanied by a more assertive American role that will conflict with the Shiite government's haste to cut back on American authority and run the war the way it wants."

David Olive (Toronto Star) sees the illegal war as a "Pandora's Box" that Bully Boy now wants to treat like a hot potato "in order that his successor as president -- and not Bush -- wears the stigma of defeat in Iraq."

Guy Dinmore (Financial Times of London) observes the speech dismissed advice regarding diplomacy, dubs it a "hardline speech" and quotes Cliff Kupchan, Eurasis Group, stating, "Bush is tapping anti-Iranian senteiment in Congress and the American public to bolster his case." Speaking with Andrea Lewis today on KPFA's The Morning Show, Michael Klare (Hampshire College's Professor of Peace and World Security Studies) detected in the speech the adminstration's arguing expanding the war beyond Iraq into neighboring countries: "This was not a message about Iraq. This was a message about preparing the American people for a wider war in the region." Also taking part in that discussion, Natalie Goldring (Georgetown University's Center for Peace and Security Studies) stated,

"We can't win in Iraq. I don't think it's possible. President Bush, to my mind, is increasingly isolated in painting this picture of an Iraq that is somehow a democratic presence and a peaceful Middle East is miraculously transformed by the American presence. In reality our presence there is making things worse. The Iraqis are in fact worse off if you look at things like their energy production and other key measures of whether people are comfortable in their homes. They're worse off than they were under Saddam which is a really scary prospect. So I don't think we can win. We do need to get out."

In June of last year, Ehren Watada became the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq. He faces a court-martial on Feburary 5th. Camp Resistance is set up outside Fort Lewis where Watada is serving and it's a project of Iraq Veterans Against the War (each day they gather at off I-5, exit 119 in Dupont, Washington). Damon Murphynotes that today: "We were approached by a Sgt. of the Dupont Police Department. He brought news that the property owner wanted us off of his land; the reason given was due to a misunderstanding about the amount of time we'd be there. The impression was that we'd be there for the two or three days surrounding Lt. Ehren Watada's Court Martial Pre-Trial; the reality, is that IVAW is deployed. When you're deployed youre stuck. When youre deployed, all you have is what is next to you: people, tools for your survival, and the mission at hand. Our mission at hand, regardless of where it takes place, is standing in solidarity with Lt. Ehren Watada as he awaits his pending Court Martial, twenty-seven days from now."

In "Oh, Condi" news -- the Senate testimony today . . . Rice noted that Sadr's bloc "pulled out and the government didn't collapse"; however, she fails to note how little got accomplished or the attempts to woo the bloc back. She boasted that, "We know why sectarian violence didn't come down" -- apparently now that Negroponte's under her, he's spilled all the beans on the death squads. She declared, "We're not going to stay married to a plan that isn't working." But failed to ask the important question: Should This Marriage Be Saved? She refused to be pinned down on 'specifics' but did note, "The oil law is important." (Well, they did name a tanker after her.) (Here's an AP article -- my remarks are based on watching it on TV.)

In Iraq today? Apparently building on Bully Boy's belicose speech, an Iranian consular office was targeted by the US military. Reuters reports that "US forces stormed an Iranian consular office in the northern Iraqi Kurdish city of Arbil and arrested five people, including diplomates and staff". The Australian notes that the US military has confirmed six arrests "but did not confirm if any were Iranians". The Cihan News Agency notes that "US soldiers seized computers and official documents" and reports five arrests following the US military "forcing open the outer gate" to the building. Xinhua reports: "The Iranian Embassy in Baghdad sent a letter to the Iraqi Foreign Ministry Thursday morning to protest against 'the U.S. illegal move' and call on the Iraqi government to help secure immediate release of the five people". BBC notes: "Reports say the Iranian consulate there was set up last year under an agreement with the Kurdish regional government to facilitate cross-border visits."

And it was six. The US military released a statement saying they "took six individuals into custody". KUNA reports: "The Presidency and government of Iraq's Kurdistan Thursday demanded the Multi-National Force (MNF) to release Iranian consulate staff members who were detained earlier today."

DPA reports three dead and 31 wounded from a truck bomb in Samaraa and that "[a]mong the dead was Asaad Yassin, president of the municipal council of Samaraa".

Shootings?

Huh?

Corpses?

What? You think anyone's reporting on Iraqis today? Seriously, CBS and AP note that an oil pipeline was attacked "in northern Iraq" because, apparently, they keep the eye on the prize -- if oil is "the prize" -- but forget about it. Don't think that means Iraqis aren't dying today -- they are. But even the bit that usually gets reported is being ignored today.

Jennie Matthew (AFP) notes that "walls" are the latest US 'answer' (and even mentions Israel while failing to note the illegality of that) because if Haidtha residents won't welcome foreign fighters, wall 'em off! Such passes for 'answers' in the illegal war. This as there's also a new 'plan' for Baghdad -- and "Truth" would be so pleased -- she might even want to grab credit. Julian E. Barnes (Los Angeles Times) reports that "gated communities" are coming to Baghdad "forcibly". Such are the plans -- the sort of laughable crap you'd expect to see stereotyped to some elderly, dottering fool convinced the world was out to get them -- which would be a perfect transition for Bully Boy's speech today; however, I think Wally and Cedric are covering that.

Finally, in Australia, ABC reports that John Howard, prime minister, is standing hip to hip with the Bully Boy but there are no plans for Australia to send in more forces and reports that "Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd mainstains that Mr Howard shares responsibility for the failures in Iraq and . . . [that] Mr Bush's statement has confirmed the coalition is losing the war, not winning it." Again, Howard's hip to hip with Bully Boy does not translate as more Australian troops being sent to Iraq. The Times of London quotes Howard declaring, "There is no direct implication for Australian forces in Iraq. We have an appropriately sized force and one that can be maintained." For the record the number of Australian forces in Iraq is 450.

About Me

We do not open attachments. Stop e-mailing them. Threats and abusive e-mail are not covered by any privacy rule. This isn't to the reporters at a certain paper (keep 'em coming, they are funny). This is for the likes of failed comics who think they can threaten via e-mails and then whine, "E-mails are supposed to be private." E-mail threats will be turned over to the FBI and they will be noted here with the names and anything I feel like quoting.
This also applies to anyone writing to complain about a friend of mine. That's not why the public account exists.